Skip to content

Socket Security GitHub App for nodejs/doc-kit #1105

Open

Description

@ovflowd

Hey folks 👋

I'd like to request the Socket Security GitHub App to be installed on nodejs/doc-kit, and only there for now.

Why

doc-kit's Dependabot PRs auto-merge after one code-owner approval, and our only dependency gate today is GitHub's Dependency Review, which only knows about published CVEs. Socket checks what a new or updated package actually does (install scripts, network/shell/filesystem access, obfuscated code, typosquats, maintainer changes, known malware) and reports it on the PR as a check run and a comment.

It also covers a gap our pnpm settings can't: about a third of doc-kit's runtime dependencies are published by a single npm account without provenance, so pnpm's trustPolicy has nothing to compare them against. We're tightening the rest of the setup in nodejs/doc-kit#1178.

Express, webpack and Electron already run it, and it's free for open source.

Permissions

Scope Permission
Repository Checks: read & write
Repository Contents: read & write (write is only for Socket's patch PRs, which we won't use)
Repository Pull requests: read & write
Repository Issues, Merge queues, Metadata: read
Organization Members: read
Account Email addresses: read

We'd configure it through a socket.yml in the repo and make its PR check required once it has run.

REF

cc @nodejs/tsc @nodejs/web-infra

Activity

  1. avivkeller commented on Nov 2, 2026

    @avivkeller
    Member

    I don't think we need socket in that repo, we review each changeset manually, and I think this'll add a lot of noise that a human reviewer will just avoid looking at?

  2. ovflowd commented on Nov 2, 2026

    @ovflowd
    MemberAuthor

    I don't think we need socket in that repo, we review each changeset manually, and I think this'll add a lot of noise that a human reviewer will just avoid looking at?

    Socket is still useful and I rather have it even if as extra noise than accidentally being a Supply Chain victim.

  3. MattIPv4 commented on Nov 2, 2026

    @MattIPv4
    Member

    2. I rather have it even if as extra noise

    I relatively strongly disagree with this; introducing more bot noise to PRs is not a good thing. It just causes fatigue, and folks stop looking at the comments/PRs completely, instead just rubberstamping. I'd rather keep our PRs lean so that humans don't get tired of reviewing them.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions